Help me understand this whole Armenian business...

[sandwich]

I've been doing my best to understand what's going on with Turkey lately. The Kurds want independence, they and the Turks send nasty (often violent) messages to each other, Kurds in Iraq get involved, Turks start shelling whole settlements and prepare to invade the almost peaceful northern Iraq. Is that okay so far?

Now the whole business with the Armenian genocide completely confuses me. First of all, why is it a part of US affairs to determine whether a situation somewhere else in the world was a genocide? Isn't it over? Would this change how we interact with Turkey? It seems like the only thing we'd do is "now say you're sorry..." and that would be it. I've heard from some people that apologies do not exist for Turks, because it implies blame, which apparently they're allergic to. Would that really be enough for them to sever any alliance? If they're really serious about wanting to join the EU, it seems like this would be a major step.

On a semi-related note, one Armenian guy told me that the US congress is basically owned by Armenian mafias. I didn't really believe him, but it's good discussion material.

[Ferrus]

First of all, why is it a part of US affairs to determine whether a situation somewhere else in the world was a genocide?
Of course recognition makes little practical difference, other than some purely legal appurtences. It is primarily a matter of morality, for the determination of future cases of 'genocide' and so forth.

Would this change how we interact with Turkey?
It would cause tension between the US and the Turkish governments, which may have some policy effect. But ultimately the economics of the relationship, along with a hard military (NATO) presence in North Turkey that is a bulwark against Russian power are going to outweigh the impact of the semantics.

Would that really be enough for them to sever any alliance?
No, for the aforementioned reasons. But it does give Turkish politicians rhetorical fire.

[outmywindow]

The US isn't determining whether or not it was a genocide, only whether or not the US government will officially call it a genocide. It's all semantics.

As for this ruling affecting US-Turkish relations, I think the issue is that the Turkish government might get a bit miffed to know that one of its friends has officially decided to go against the Turkish opinion on the matter. Also, I'd imagine that there might be some issues about the US having openly beneficial relations with a country it acknowledges as having condoned genocide. That really doesn't look good for everyone politically involved.

[Ferrus]

with a country it acknowledges as having condoned genocide.
Although it still has relations with Germany, Japan (which committed war crimes of genocidal scale in China), Cambodia and Rwanda on the polity that the government that had perpetrated the said crimes was no longer in existence (even in Cambodia, eventually). Now, the Turkish government of the day - the Ottoman Sultanate, although in actuality the shadowy 'Young Turks' was destroyed in the WW1, and the rise of Ataturk. It's just national pride on the one hand against a need for another country to subscribe to the 'moral high ground'. And indeed France has already passed the same resolution.

In Europe of course it takes a different flavour - those countries wanting Turkey to join the EU, such as Britain (to prevent further 'deepening' of power) are not going to consider it genocide, countries that are quite strongly opposed to Turkish membership (primarily in Western Europe), are.

[sandwich]

Although it still has relations with Germany, Japan (which committed war crimes of genocidal scale in China), Cambodia and Rwanda on the polity that the government that had perpetrated the said crimes was no longer in existence (even in Cambodia, eventually). Now, the Turkish government of the day - the Ottoman Sultanate, although in actuality the shadowy 'Young Turks' was destroyed in the WW1, and the rise of Ataturk. It's just national pride on the one hand against a need for another country to subscribe to the 'moral high ground'. And indeed France has already passed the same resolution.

In Europe of course it takes a different flavour - those countries wanting Turkey to join the EU, such as Britain (to prevent further 'deepening' of power) are not going to consider it genocide, countries that are quite strongly opposed to Turkish membership (primarily in Western Europe), are.

If they recognized the genocide do you think that it would have a positive or negative affect for the EU process?

[rek]

It's all just stupid politics.

[lowtech redneck]

Extremely bad timing, is what it is, just like recent Taiwanese pro-independence gestures. Just because something is morally right in itself does not make it the right thing to do under any circumstances. I think this political stunt has the potential to seriously harm our national interests (remember, France does not have troops that need to be supplied through Turkish airspace and that are already next to two regional allies that are threatening to go to war with each other as we speak). The leaders in Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan might not wish to follow through on nationalist rhetoric, but their constituencies might get other ideas...

[slacker]

Turkey & the US are slowly on the outs, mainly because of divergent strategic outlooks for the Middle East. Turkey will not make it into the EU. The Armenia thing is probably partly a response to Turkey's unwillingness to bow to US pressure on Turkish activities in the region, esp intervening in Iraq & cozying up with Iran. It's also partially a sop to a decently powerful Armenian lobby in states like California. Not likely to become law.

[Ferrus]

If they recognized the genocide do you think that it would have a positive or negative affect for the EU process?
What the US does has little importance in the EU matters, although to a certain degree the US's wishes are mediated to the EU by the UK. Recognising the genocide, per se, will not impede the process, but if other countries all do this and Turkey continues to refuse to apologise or recognise the incident then it could have a deleterious effect on their accession.

[NoahFence]

What I don't get is that it's not even the same government, it was the last gasp of the Ottoman Empire that slaughtered the Armenians.

If we invaded Myanmar (Burma) and strung up all the Junta, replacing them with democraticly elected leaders in a capitalist paradise, would we then turn around and say "You fuckers committed horrific attrocities, admit it"? Isn't that the point of replacing the government?

[mad99001]

Read "The Black Dog of Fate" by Peter Balakian and you will understand.

[NoahFence]

Read "The Black Dog of Fate" by Peter Balakian and you will understand.

That would be impractical at this time. Can you summarize?

[Ferrus]

If we invaded Myanmar (Burma) and strung up all the Junta, replacing them with democraticly elected leaders in a capitalist paradise, would we then turn around and say "You fuckers committed horrific attrocities, admit it"? Isn't that the point of replacing the government?
It's not quite that simple, although it is the nub of my initial argument. Not as simple insofar as it is hard to determine whether it was the Ottoman Empire - in truth it was a specific faction that had many roots in the elite of the country that still persists today, and besides the regime that replaced the Sultanate was not so ideologically differentiated from the Young Turks who were largely responsible for the massacre. The real question at stake is that the Turks deny it that is was a genocide, they simply see it as part of the chaos that gripped the world during WW1, whereas the Armenians naturally see otherwise.

[omnirook]

I agree w/Ferrus.

I would say that the Turks should do what Japan's emporer did regarding China (w/o consulting his government) and make a formal appology. (This caused a mini constitutional crisis that was over-ruled when the Japanese public applauded the emporer's move.)

The Turkish Government should distance itself from the Ottoman Empire's behavior. Not having done this already is a sign that the Turks are somehow "out of the loop" when it comes to 21st Century bullshit. But, as Ferrus says, econmic need and the desire to get into the EU might push the Turks into at least swallowing their anger, if not into making formal (and moot) appologies.

[Karl]

Now the whole business with the Armenian genocide completely confuses me. First of all, why is it a part of US affairs to determine whether a situation somewhere else in the world was a genocide?

PR/Everyone else is doing it, kind of thing. Some people think it's a backhanded way of trying to mess up the Republican war effort, and it could very well be that in the minds of a few people who voted to call it a genocide.

In all honestly, it's just another example of the west writing history as they please, instead of pushing for more research to be done.

[Theodoret]

I must say that I find the recent trend of people apologising for something they didn't have any involvement in to people who are in no position to receive the apology (being dead) rather ludicrous. Everyone involved in the forced relocation of the Turkish Armenians is now dead, and I don't hold with the idea that the sins of the father pass to the son. It makes about as much sense to me as Spain demanding a formal apology from Tunisia for the Carthaginian campaign against the Celtiberians.

Now the Turkish border skirmishes with Kurdish Iraq is more interesting. Potential to further destabilise the region.

[rek]

I must say that I find the recent trend of people apologising for something they didn't have any involvement in to people who are in no position to receive the apology (being dead) rather ludicrous.

Exactly.